Waive the Wait Rule

[Appling]

We all know that Lou Gehrig and Roberto Clemente were inducted into the Hall of Fame by means of special election. In Clemente's case they even had to waive the five-year-wait rule which was then in effect. Was this the right thing to do?

I wonder -- if Roger Clemens were to suddenly become very ill or seriously injured -- FORCING HIS RETIREMENT THIS YEAR -- might he then become eligible for special election to the Hall, without the five-year wait?

Or: same question for Barry Bonds?

Does it require death? Or is there even something more involved here? As I recall, Gehrig was still alive when he was elected to the Hall of Fame -- but Clemente was not. So why the rush?

Maybe a poll question:
"Should the 5-year wait rule ever be suspended, allowing players in special circumstances to be immediately elected by special ballot??

[switch_hitter]

On a special case like Clemente's or Gehrig, the waiving of this clause was a gesture of respect due to death (one immediate, one coming soon). Even though Clemens is a no-doubt Hall-of-Famer, as the rules stand he should not be elected just because he retired. Some may say that this rule should be changed, but it was instituted to make sure that players were for sure retired (which is something that Clemens has done more than once in his career), and because players should be elected based on evaluation of what they have done in their careers.

[Brad Harris]

The rule should never be waived for an individual. If you're going to have a rule, enforce it across-the-board. Else, why have one at all?

[desertmonk]

Not to change the subject completely, but is Michael Jordan is basketball's HOF yet?

[Erik Bedard]

Only in cases of death or mortal illness, like Clemente or Gehrig. And only if that player was without a doubt HOF worthy. As in NOT Thurman Munson. Sorry, but dying doesn't make you better than Fisk.

[ElHalo]

Not to change the subject completely, but is Michael Jordan is basketball's HOF yet?

No. Not yet eligible.

[ElHalo]

Does it require death? Or is there even something more involved here? As I recall, Gehrig was still alive when he was elected to the Hall of Fame -- but Clemente was not. So why the rush?


The rule will only be waived in case of death. In Gehrig's case, yes, he was alive, but there was no five year rule in place at the time (Gehrig actually did very well in the initial HoF balloting in 1936, when he was still relatively in his prime... Hornsby was also almost elected as an active player).

[Brad Harris]

This begs the question of why we even have a 5-year wait in the first place? As I see it, there are two reasons:

(1) To give voters some perspective on the player's career, to be able to apply a context to it, and to avoid emotion-fueled voting.

(2) To ensure that a player's career is, in fact, over and that retirement is "permanent," thus ensuring that a player's career numbers don't change because he plays again.

Let me address each of these in reverse order.

It seems to me that all ballplayers begin with absolutely zero credentials for the Hall of Fame and that everything they do from the start of their career onwards can only add to their worthiness of the Hall of Fame. In much the same way that no player's - counting stats - career totals can ever decrease through more playing time, I feel strongly that once the player has reached the point where he is a "Hall of Famer," then there's nothing he can do on the field to reverse that accomplishment. Frank Thomas was a Hall-of-Famer by the time he'd put 10 seasons in the books. Subsequent seasons haven't built on that resume the way we might like, but they certainly haven't detracted from it! All this to say that if a player were to come out of retirement after a few seasons then he would only have the opportunity to add to (not subtract from) his Hall of Fame case. A very good recent example would be Ryne Sandberg, who retired in 1994. He returned to play more in 1996-1997, but couldn't have done anything during those two years to diminish his previous accomplishments. Sure he might lower his career averages, but future production can't alter past accomplishment. As it turned out, Ryno added very little to his Hall of Fame resume by returning, but only the opportunity to add to that resume was facilitated by his return.

Hence, if a player "retires", becomes eligible for the Hall of Fame, and then changes his mind - and tries to come back - while he is a candidate (or, possibly even an inductee)....so what? What could he possibly do to make him less worthy of election?

Arguing that a player could always throw a game, or (more likely, perhaps) that during the ensuing years, steroid allegations might surface (or be proven) that would change how voters look at the candidate....well, that's certainly possible. But that could happen anytime. Why not have a 10-year wait? Or a 25-year wait? How long do we have to wait before we say we're not expecting any unpleasant surprises? You could wait forever. If someone is suspect and their candidacy is jeapordized by allegations, then voters should err on the side of caution (as they should with any candidacy.) The Hall of Fame is baseball's highest honor and it should be bestowed with a measure of certainty.

Having a 3-year wait, a 1-year wait or no wait, however, is no different than a 5-year wait in the above respects and this is a very poor argument, ultimately, for postponing one's candidacy.

The first reason I gave at the start of this post - to give voters some perspective - is the best reason for having any kind of wait. Frankly, I don't have much confidence that the current voters (the BBWAA), as a group, gain any more perspective after 5 years than they would if they voted immediately following a player's retirement. Witness the practically automatic elections of Kirby Puckett and Ozzie Smith. Cal Ripken will receive a similar shooing in.

We are fortunate, today, to have the kind of tools that help us examine a player's performance in context. The kinds of tools (adjusted rate stats, park factors, league and era adjustments, etc.) that weren't widely accessible a generation ago and didn't exist 2-3 generations ago. We can already estimate what the true value of Todd Helton's offense is, for example. We won't know any more about it that 5 years after he retires than we do within a year of his retirement.

The Hall of Fame has never made plain why they have a 5-year wait rule for first-time candidates, but either of these rationales is, ultimately, a flimsy reason for delaying consideration of a player's career.

Furthermore, by expediting the process for deceased players (Roberto Clemente, Daryl Kile, Ken Caminiti*, etc.) the Hall is seriously undermining the more persuasive of the two arguments: that voters need time and distance to properly evaluate a player's career.

My recommendation would be that players become eligible for consideration after sitting out a full season. The Hall of Fame and BBWAA can certainly communicate with teams and players such that a player who sat out a full season due to injury, but is not considering retirement would not be qualified for entry to the ballot. (Dave Winfield, John Smoltz, and Jeff Bagwell? are examples of candidates who had injuries of this nature later in their career.) Essentially though, you'd be looking at a player becoming eligible for the ballot within a year of his retirement.

This proposal has the added benefits of creating focus on the player as a Hall of Fame candidate by carrying over the "farewell tour" spotlight and turning that attention into serious discussion about the player's merits. Writers wouldn't have 4 or 4.5 years to become lazy and would have fewer excuses for waiting until receiving the ballot before giving the player their "full consideration." Secondly, it would eliminate the inconsistent application of the Hall's rules to various candidates (Gehrig, Clemente, etc.), improving the quality of the process and reputation of the Hall of Fame. Finally - and this is no small matter - it would provide players who retired due to injury or illness with the earliest possible opportunity to have their career considered, thus expediting the process of election for worthy candidates who might not live to long enjoy, or even see, the highest honor of their career. Granted that this is not a reason to elect someone, but it would certainly assist in the election of worthy candidates by making them eligible as soon as possible.

A five-year wait? Why, not at all!
But Much more fair for one and all,
In expediting the Eternal's call,
Is the one-year wait for Baseball's Hall


* Caminiti should have been placed on last year's ballot, but the lazy writers "overlooked" their own damn rules and forgot to include him. Ask Freakshow for more details as he contacted the BBWAA about the oversight.

[ElHalo]

It seems to me that all ballplayers begin with absolutely zero credentials for the Hall of Fame and that everything they do from the start of their career onwards can only add to their worthiness of the Hall of Fame. In much the same way that no player's - counting stats - career totals can ever decrease through more playing time, I feel strongly that once the player has reached the point where he is a "Hall of Famer," then there's nothing he can do on the field to reverse that accomplishment. Frank Thomas was a Hall-of-Famer by the time he'd put 10 seasons in the books. Subsequent seasons haven't built on that resume the way we might like, but they certainly haven't detracted from it!

Disagree here. Frank Thomas, sure; he was great enough that he's a HoF'er regardless. But think about somebody more on the bubble. Let's give a shot to Miguel Tejada.

Tejada becomes Hall eligible this year. Let's say that, this season, he puts up a .340 / 50 HR / 150 RBI season, and then immediately retires due to injury. There's a significant percentage of the voting populace who would let him into the Hall with that career... certainly not a unanimity, but maybe enough for him to get in on the sympathy vote.

Now, say that he has that exact same season, doesn't get injured, and then starts to throw up those .260/.290/.390 seasons we all see in his future up there year after year with declining defense. Does that for ten years.

Is he still a HoF'er to all of those people? Probably not. Poor play can hurt weaker play, even if you can't subtract counting stats. My opinion of Ichiro's overall status was much, much higher after the 2004 season than it is today.

[Pghfan987]

Now, say that Tejada has that exact same season, doesn't get injured, and then starts to throw up those .260/.290/.390 seasons we all see in his future up there year after year with declining defense.


Speak for yourself, EH. I don't see anything but continued production from the best SS (besides A-Rod) in the Major Leagues for several more seasons. I know you are really anxious to be able to call Jeter the best shortstop in the league again one day, but it won't happen.

[Brad Harris]

Disagree here. Frank Thomas, sure; he was great enough that he's a HoF'er regardless. But think about somebody more on the bubble. Let's give a shot to Miguel Tejada.

Tejada becomes Hall eligible this year. Let's say that, this season, he puts up a .340 / 50 HR / 150 RBI season, and then immediately retires due to injury. There's a significant percentage of the voting populace who would let him into the Hall with that career... certainly not a unanimity, but maybe enough for him to get in on the sympathy vote.

Now, say that he has that exact same season, doesn't get injured, and then starts to throw up those .260/.290/.390 seasons we all see in his future up there year after year with declining defense. Does that for ten years.

Is he still a HoF'er to all of those people? Probably not. Poor play can hurt weaker play, even if you can't subtract counting stats. My opinion of Ichiro's overall status was much, much higher after the 2004 season than it is today.


I see your point. All players see their rate stats drop as they see more playing time, over the years. No one can maintain a high level of play forever. If they could, we'd still see Hank Aaron plodding along with .300-30-100 seasons.

Using your example, if Tejada is (empirically) a Hall-of-Famer after 2006 (when he'd presumably retire with high rate stats, but mid-level counting stats), then he's still a Hall-of-Famer in 10 years, despite significantly lower counting stats and higher-level counting stats.

While there might be a difference in the minds of some voters, empirically, Tejada's performance can't warrant the Hall of Fame today, but not warrant it tomorrow.

While we may certainly agree to disagree over that point, I would argue that a player who retires and then comes back has very little production remaining in him after his return. So it's only a theoretical point. I, for one, can't name any baseball players who have altered the status of their candidacy significantly altered (particularly in a negative way) after retiring too early. So while you may have a point, in theory, I can't think of a practical example where it's occurred. Perhaps you can?

[Brad Harris]

With respect to your hypothetical example of Tejada...

Tejada's closest comps at this age (according to similarity scores) are Vern Stephens and Cal Ripken. Ironic isn't it? Stephens petered out early after such a great beginning and Ripken just plodded along, padding his numbers.

There's no one who believes Ripken's post-1991 career hurt his Hall of Fame credentials, is there? A year from now, Ripken will be in the Hall while Stephens will still be a fringe candidate of hard-core history buffs.